Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the June 25 article: Kenversationsâ„¢ at <a href="News-ID111290.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID111290.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By CuriosWolfSo Just out of curiousity, Ken, where in Disneyland that you would have put the whole cast of "Peter and the Wolf" (From "Make Mine Music")?
Originally Posted By SFH Good question. There were movies I didn't mention for the sake of space. "Peter and the Wolf" would probably be a Fantasyland project. However, just like "Robin Hood", I'm not sure there is much besides the characters themselves that you could take from the film. "Atlantis" and "Treasure Planet", for instance, have very distinct "sets", sequences, and vehicles that could be adapted for theme park use. I also didn't get into Pixar films aside from mentioned Buzz Lightyear, but "Monsters, Inc." screams "theme park attractions". In that film, Pixar handed Disney several concepts on a silver platter. SFH
Originally Posted By HeartinDL I feel that DISNEYLAND as a whole is a fantasy, whether we conjure up the cowboy and Indians theme or imagine we are rocketing into space - it's all Disney. Therefore, any character(s) appropriate within the berm enhance the enjoyment of the adventures we experience. The more characters the better, Disney does it best. That goes for all Disney movies The more that can be included, grrrreat, as that is how we relate to the Park, making it the Magic Kingdom that it is, movies coming to life before our very eyes - NOT just a bunch of rides and attractions. (A place where parents and children can have fun together) - a loose recalling of Walt's words. Every generation finds it's own excitment over and over again, that's what really matters - the imagination! By the way, James every-T-name-in-the-book, Kirk, can be seen locally in Buena Park at the Movieland Wax Museum Star Trek exhibit, and he looks good these days, too! ;o)
Originally Posted By tonyanton Thanks for the article Ken. I agree with your premise of Fantasyland being a place for the European-based films. Films like the Lion King and Tarzan do not fit the FL theme...they are much better suited to Adventureland. At WDW, I never though the "Legend of the Lion King" show was appropriate for Fantasyland. I think it was just that the major films to base attractions on when Walt was around were derived from European stories...so the issue didn't really come up then.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Thought provoking article, Ken. I basically agree with you that animated characters might fit into all areas of he park. BTW, if my memory is correct, "Pecos Bill" used to be shown on screen at the Golden Horseshoe prior to the start of the live show. Thanks for your good work on LP.
Originally Posted By cancilla I also recall seeing "Pecos Bill" at the Golden Horseshoe many years ago. And, of course, there are period-appropriate cartoons shown in the Main Street Cinema. And what about "meet and greet" characters? Were Mickey and friends confined to Fantasyland in Walt's day? And were there character parades that went through the park like there are today? Unfortunately, I'm not old enough to know the answers to these questions. Also, I'm not sure how much they impact the discussion, since they don't involve attractions, per se.
Originally Posted By JThad I remember seeing "meet/greet" characters in other areas of the park in the 70's. Baloo and King Louie were in Adventureland; Brer Bear and Brer Fox were in New Orleans Square...but I also saw them in Tomorrowland along with Robin Hood and Prince John--though the last two were closer to the hub. Nowadays it is still extremely common to see Mickey and the gang at the Town Square end of Main Street. I say: if it is appropriate, do it (ie, Buzz Lightyear in Tomorrowland and Woddy in Frontierland). If it ain't--don't do it (ie, Brer Bear in Tomorrowland). As far as rides/attractions go: if the theming/architecture works seamlessly in a land, do it; if not--don't. But above all--MAKE IT A GOOD, IF NOT GREAT, ATTRACTION!
Originally Posted By SFH I was putting the focus on attractions, shops, and restaurants rather than the walk-around characters, because those physically alter the park. The addition of Splash Mountain was appropriate - the cartoon characters were housed inside the attraction, and Critter County provided a kind of "folklore" extension to the southern theme of New Orleans Square. Bambi would never work in that kind of Critter Country, which was supposed to be a place where "the critters were closer to the folks, and the folks were closer to the critters". Tarzan belongs in Adventureland much more than he would belong in Fantasyland. SFH
Originally Posted By Paula442 I have always felt a "Bambi's Adventures" ride would be great for Frontierland, except that the killing of deer by Man as an awful act wouldn't really mesh well with the whole frontier ethic. I also think a "Monster's Inc" door ride would be great for ...hmmm. Maybe CA? Or maybe Pixar doesn't count as Disney. Anyway, I think Disney utilized the subjects he chose as Fantasyland rides were because he thought of them as essentially fantastic (children who can fly and an eternal boy, puppets which can move, elephants which can fly, an underground wonderland with talking animals and animated decks of cards... a wicked witch, or witches...). But I think he just had lost interest in adapting his old movies into rides after a certain point and that is why he ceased to do it. He wanted always to do something NEW.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations Ken, Good article! I agree with you that characters can go anywhere in the Park if they fit with the theme of that area. For example they had Woody with Buzz in Tomorrowland a few years ago. I'd rather see Buzz in Tomorrowland and Woody in Frontierland. Mb
Originally Posted By hightp At the end of the article...it's James Tiberius Kirk, not Tuscarora. (Yes, I am a geek.)
